AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 27, 1998

• 1559

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien, (Abitibi, Lib.)): We will now begin our meeting, since we have quorum. Welcome. This will be a good day thanks to the cooperation of all members present.

On this Wednesday, May 27th, 1998, we are studying Bill C-30, an Act respecting the powers of the Micmac of Nova Scotia in relation to education. Our witnesses today are from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are Mr. Joe McNeil, advisor, intergovernmental affairs for the Atlantic region, and Mr. Allan Cracower, legal advisor.

Before we begin, I would like to make a comment on the amendments. We will have to be very careful on the amendments because two have been added. The amendments will be dealt with in the following order: PC-1, then R-2 followed by PC-2, PC-3, PC-4 and PC-5, and finally R-3.

• 1600

We are going to begin clause-by-clause consideration. In accordance with Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the first clause is deferred.

(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carried)

(Clause 6-Legislative Power)

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, regarding amendment PC-1, on clause 6.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): The bill now says, Mr. Chairman:

A community may make laws in relation to the administration and expenditure of community funds

Because we're dealing with the expenditure of community funds, we've added to that, “in a fair and impartial manner”. It's because we're spending money; that's why we put that in. It may not be absolutely necessary, but we heard a number of witnesses discuss this, and I think it's important to add those words to the bill—assuming that everyone works in a fair and impartial manner. I understand that, but....

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Keddy's amendment cannot be passed. If you look at the Mi'kmaq education agreement, schedule D, the principle of the constitution is already there. The first paragraph itself reads, “The Community Constitutions will establish fair, open and transparent processes”. It's already there.

I disagree as well that if we're allowed to put this as is, it means a community could be unfair and partial, and I don't think first nations are doing this. They are working for their communities.

This is one of the reasons that we're totally opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll accept that. I'm not going to argue over that.

The Chairman: Do you remove your amendment?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

[Translation]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chairman: We will now go to amendment R-2.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There were people who were concerned yesterday that members of a community outside the community would be denied funds, particularly the people from Membertou, who just don't have the land base to have everybody on their reserve. That's the reason for submitting this amendment.

Mr. Bernard Patry: This is amendment R-2?

Can I speak to it, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have the floor, Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to tell my colleague from the Reform Party that if he looks at the agreement on page 8, article 5.5.1, it says the following:

The participating communities shall have jurisdiction with respect to post-secondary student support for members, whether or not resident on reserve to the same extent as would otherwise have been exercised by Canada.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm not sure if that answers the question that this attempts to answer. In a sense, it just says that the communities will have jurisdiction as would otherwise have been exercised. It doesn't state whether or not those members would indeed be eligible.

• 1605

The Chairman: Monsieur Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, clause 2 in the bill reads as follows:

A community may make laws in relation to the administration and expenditure of community funds in support of post-secondary education, as provided by the Agreement,

—which Mr. Patry has just read—

for members of the community wherever resident.

I see no point to this amendment. All it does is remove “as provided by the Agreement”. The agreement says exactly the same as clause 2. I don't know what the difference is. I see no difference at all. I don't care if “as provided by the Agreement” is there or not.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's redundant.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, it's redundant.

The Chairman: Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): It seems to me if you take out those words, you're actually weakening the section, because the agreement spells out very clearly what we want to accomplish. If you take out “as provided by the Agreement”, you're weakening the section.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We now go to amendment PC-2.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In clause 6, after line 23 on page 2, I would add:

In this section “post-secondary education” means a university, college, technical school or trade school education.

I think we all understand that there's a need for community college and technical schools to be included as secondary education. What we're talking about is trying to put as many people into the workforce as possible. It's all right to expect that your high school education may have been provided for, but we haven't defined post-secondary as meaning those other items, separate of university education. It includes all three.

That was a concern raised by a number of the groups.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

If you look at page 5 of the agreement, fourth paragraph, it reads:

`post-secondary student support' means the program administered on reserve to provide student financial support with respect to the education assistance including counselling provided by Mi'kmaq Bands to members attending post-secondary institutions;

If I agreed with your amendment, Mr. Keddy, to me it would limit and exclude. It would do totally the opposite of what you intend to do. With this definition it's all post-secondary institutions. If we just put “technical school or trade school education”, and we refer back to Mrs. Johnson, who came here yesterday, her son, who would like to attend flight school, would be unable to attend flight school.

This is why we need to have a much broader explanation. For me, stating “post-secondary institutions” is specific enough. It includes everything. If we want to go very, very specific, vocational training, for instance, would not be included.

So I think we need to leave it as it is right now.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I disagree, Mr. Patry. I think what happens is it's not included. Read it through again. It says:

`post-secondary student support' means the program administered on reserve to provide student financial support with respect to education assistance including consulting provided by Mi'kmaq Bands to members attending post-secondary institutions;

All we've added is the definition of post-secondary institutions.

The Chairman: Monsieur Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I agree with what you're saying, Mr. Keddy, but what you're going to exclude, it seems to me, are a number of things—perhaps secretarial school, perhaps language school, perhaps hairdressing school, perhaps tailoring school, and perhaps a lot of other things.

I think we need to have it as broad as possible. This leaves the control in the hands of the people on the reserve, as a community. If they want to send somebody to driver training school, transport training school, heavy machinery operations or something, they can do it. I could make a list from here to here of all the things you might want to do.

• 1610

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But would not all of those institutions be classed as either a college or a technical school?

Mr. Bernard Patry: No.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Is it possible to propose sub-amendments? You need to explain this to me.

The Chairman: Our advisors say that you do have the right to propose sub-amendments.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to try to bring the two sides together. I know that Mr. Keddy is concerned that some people might be told that post-secondary education is not adequately defined. I would therefore like to add clarifications. However, if we clarify the definition, something might be omitted. One proposal might be to add to the present clause that "education at the post-secondary level includes in particular...," which would mean that there is a specific reference to the clause that this amendment applies to, and also to the definition included in the agreement.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I think it's fairly clear. Post-secondary is anything after secondary, and that can include anything. I think once we start articulating what we assume is post-secondary, something will get left out. I agree with Mr. Finlay. We've all been involved with post-secondary education in some form, and as Mr. Finlay says, if we sat down and brainstormed there would probably be 40 different things.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: How do you prevent abuse of the system then, Mrs. Longfield, where a band council can decide this isn't post-secondary education if you don't define post-secondary education?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Anything after secondary that is education is post-secondary, by the very nature of the words. I think the problem comes when we call it a trade. The example of flying school Mr. Finlay used, I could argue, is not a trade.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I agree we shouldn't narrow that definition, because when you start trying to define something, you end up restricting it more. People look to what's there and then start saying if it's not there, it doesn't count. But if you leave it as a broad post-secondary, it leaves it open for all those things we want to catch there. Even if you define it, if there's going to be abuse by defining it, it won't necessarily cut down on that abuse. It will just give a tighter framework for people to use to abuse.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That may be true, and I don't want to spend too much time on any of these amendments, but I think we should know when we move ahead that we're satisfied to leave them behind us, and I'm not quite satisfied yet.

When you read the part in the agreement, it says “post-secondary student support means the program administered on reserve to provide student financial support”. We're assuming that means all post-secondary student support.

My question to the committee then is, will this prevent any future abuse of the system, by definition? You're saying post-secondary means post-secondary.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Only, Mr. Keddy, in what it says. It also says “including counselling provided by Mi'kmaq bands to members attending post-secondary institutions”, which to you and me is guidance counselling. Someone may not be suited for something. Someone may want to be a fashion model, and that costs $300 a week plus living in New York, and they may look, unfortunately, not like a fashion model. Someone may have to tell them “I'm sorry, we're not going to give you $1,000 a week or a month to go to New York to be a fashion model.” Someone has to control the expenditure of funds.

• 1615

If we're going to allow anything at all, people will search around for something. They may have low qualifications and may have failed grade 10, but they're going to do this. That's what I'm worried about here and that's why they include counselling. We have to allow that someone will make a reasonable decision so the money isn't wafted off.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I am sorry, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have a question as to why we would even mention “as provided by the agreement” in the act in that case, since it doesn't say anything that isn't said here. It's simply restating and talking about support of post-secondary education. We wouldn't even need to say “as provided by the agreement”, just “four members of the committee wherever resident”. The agreement attaches to and can be renegotiated at all times. Why do you even have it in there if you can't define it?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: In response to Mr. Konrad, I think the best reason for leaving “as provided in the agreement” is if the agreement is amended from time to time, you wouldn't have to go back to the act.

A voice: No.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You wouldn't have to. If it were specific to what was in the agreement, you could amend the agreement from time to time, and it would make it clear that's where you would get the specifics.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The only thing I want to have clear in my own mind is that we put an agreement in place that doesn't leave itself open for abuse by anyone who's party to the agreement. That's the point I'm coming from. It includes career counselling, but someone can make an arbitrary decision that perhaps you're not suited for this area when you really are. If that's so—and I'm not trying to get this into a broader sphere—is there a recourse to that? Is there some way you can question that decision? Is there anything in the act to provide for that?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I think it says that. It's there.

Mr. John Finlay: I think, Mr. Keddy, you're allowing the testimony—with respect—of one person the other day who was not satisfied, and in my opinion will never be satisfied. Her file and her son's file are probably very thick in the band office. Someone has to control those kinds of people. Otherwise, if we make it too open, little Johnny will go to be an actor or a pilot. Little Johnny can be whatever he likes. I've pushed that all my life in education, and maybe you have. But if it isn't recognized and if it isn't paid for publicly, someone who has it paid for publicly has to be controlled. They can go to flying school on their own if they want to, or modelling school.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy has asked a question. Perhaps Mr. Cracower can answer it and tell us if the matter could be dealt with elsewhere, in the regulations.

[English]

Mr. Allan Cracower (Legal Adviser, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): In response first to Dr. Patry's comments earlier, the fact remains that the definition provides for institutions generally, which consequently means it doesn't matter which institution you're referring to, whether it's vocational, training of a different nature, university or college. That is all addressed in a definition.

As far as abuse of a system, needless to say, any system is subject to abuse. The question is what recourse? The constitution provides that the first nations and of course the school boards themselves are responsible for ensuring a fair, open, and transparent system. Consequently, there would be opportunity for redress by members of the community. In the event there was an apparent abuse, they would have the right to take proceedings.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Where does it state that in the agreement?

• 1620

Mr. Allan Cracower: Again, I make reference to the constitution. It talks in paragraph 1 of the constitution:

The Community Constitutions will establish fair, open and transparent processes which shall not be inconsistent with the standards, generally in place, governing the processes for legislation, regulation and administration of education by authorities having jurisdiction with respect to education in other education systems in Canada and which reflect Mi'kmaq traditions, values and culture....

[Translation]

The Chairman: I am sorry for interrupting you. That is in schedule D of the agreement, entitled "Principles of the constitutions."

Do you have that, Madam?

[English]

Mr. Allan Cracower: I specifically make reference in that paragraph 1 of the constitution to subsection paragraph 1(b).

[Translation]

The Chairman: It is in schedule D, paragraph 1(b) of the "Principles of the constitutions."

We will have discussion now. We must not forget Mr. Bachand's sub-amendment.

An hon. member: Was it moved?

The Chairman: No. Were you waiting to see how the discussion went?

Mr. Claude Bachand: I was waiting, and the sub-amendment was not taken up by anyone.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll withdraw the amendment. We don't have to vote on it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Amendment PC is withdrawn. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: PC-2.

The Chairman: Amendment PC-2. Thank you. My old roots.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chairman: We will now go to amendment PC-3 proposed by Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Again, this amendment was put in, stating:

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a community shall not expend community funds in support of post-secondary education

—which, again, is all-inclusive here—

for a member of the community referred to in that subsection unless it has first provided to every member of the community who has requested it, a list of every member of the community—I think that's wrong—requesting financial assistance for such education.

We reworded that, actually, because the first wording of it had stated, “should be forced to supply to every member of the community a list of people seeking education”, which is cumbersome and there's no need of it. We reworded it so if someone does request the list, it's available. It makes it open and transparent and democratic, and we've all heard those words.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: We're opposing this amendment for two reasons. First of all, Mr. Keddy, I think you're imposing qualifications and obligations that don't exist in the founding agreement. On top of that, you're asking of the Mi'kmaq education board even higher standards than are happening in the province of Nova Scotia and the other provinces.

The second reason is that this is against section 49 of the Privacy Act.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why is it against? You could ask for that same information in the Privacy Act.

The Chairman: Mr. Cracower.

Mr. Allan Cracower: The first nations would not ordinarily be subject to the Privacy Act unless they were added to the schedule. However, in keeping with the spirit and intention of the proposed legislation, that it should be consistent with the norms throughout Canada, I think it would not be reasonable for these first nations to be subject to that which is not required for Canadian institutions or other organizations across Canada.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're telling me that any provincial government in Canada doesn't have to make available under the Privacy Act its list of bursaries to students for universities if someone asks for it?

• 1625

Mr. Allan Cracower: I'm saying if it's a matter of a confidential nature that could, for whatever reasons, either financial embarrassment or other reasons, prejudice that individual, I think we should seriously take into account the parliamentarians' wishes in the past as to what they considered to be a standard that should be applicable to all Canadians. Therefore, why should first nations in particular have to have a standard of a higher degree?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not looking at it at all as saying it's a standard of a higher degree. I think it's a sensible law for a group that's working on a communal effort. This is not quite the same situation that exists in the rest of Canada, and if a member of that group, not a member from outside the group, is refused the ability to have their post-secondary education financed, they can say to them, well, I would like to see the list of who was financed then. These are the same as shareholders in a company. This is not private ownership here. This is a band that has equal ownership in that corporation. It's not the same as any other—

Mr. John Finlay: With all due respect, that isn't what it says, Mr. Keddy. It says here:

a community shall not expend community funds in support of post-secondary education for a member...unless it has first provided to every member of the community who has requested it, a list of every member of the community requesting financial assistance for such education.

How do you suppose we're going to carry that out? How many months are we going to collect the list of who's going to ask for it, and how many months are we going to wait while we send this list out before we make a decision? It's simply unworkable.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: That's the same point I was going to make. It's an administrative nightmare. If somebody applies, they can't get the grant because everybody hasn't asked for this list yet.

I also agree that it's an invasion of the privacy of the people who have applied, to have their name passed out to everybody else. I don't think it's a good amendment, and it is creating a standard that's different from non-aboriginal society.

When you ask about what's available under the Access to Information Act, that's different, because someone is not waiting to get their money pending receipt of this information. Quite often they're asking for this information after everything is over and done with. They're seeking information that would normally be made public. It's different from what you have here.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I suspect the wording maybe could have been better, but I'll go back to the intent, which is that the band council, the chiefs, whoever is responsible, should be responsible to the people they represent. If those people would like to see a list of the people who are being supported for secondary education, they should be able to see it.

The Chairman: Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You're not asking for those who have received it; you're asking for those who have asked to receive it. That's a big difference. You're asking for them to say anyone who has applied.

Mr. Keddy, if you've applied for 25 things in your life, would you want those things published? If you received the funds, that's a matter of public knowledge, but not if you've applied for it, and that's what you're saying. You're saying, I want the list of everyone who has applied.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy has worked very hard on this amendment. That is why I am taking the time we need.

Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand what the committee members are saying. I'm not quite in agreement. It's not reading properly. I'm going to vote for it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing it or maintaining it?

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We will now move on to amendment PC-4 by Mr. Keddy. Could you read it, Mr. Keddy, please?

• 1630

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd love to read it, Mr. Chairman. It says:

(3) After the community has decided upon how it proposes to allocate funds authorized to be expended under this section, the community shall provide to any member of the community who requests it, a list indicating how the community proposes to allocate those funds.

That's what the first one should have said.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I think the same arguments provided for the previous amendment should apply to this amendment. I have no more comments. We are totally opposed to this one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Once funds have been expended, not proposals, the person might move away, die, change their mind, or anything else before receiving a dollar. Is there any provision for knowing who has actually received the funds and gone?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNeil.

[English]

Mr. Joe McNeil (Adviser, Intergovernmental Affairs, Atlantic Region, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes, it is provided in the funding arrangement to have two reporting functions with respect to that agreement. One is the annual audit, so an independent auditing firm will come in and audit the amount of money that's in the community. That will be specifically outlined as to the expenditure of that money. Secondly, an expanded annual report is required from each community, indicating not only the money that was funded but how that money was funded and the impact on the community.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Which article of the agreement is that, Mr. McNeil? It is important for Mr. Keddy to have all the information.

[English]

Mr. Joe McNeil: It's in the funding arrangements under reporting.

[Translation]

The Chairman: In schedule...

[English]

Ms. Jill Wherrett (Committee Researcher): The funding agreement is schedule A.

Mr. Joe McNeil: It's the second document in the package on page 8.

[Translation]

The Chairman: On page 8, in about the middle of the agreement.

[English]

Mr. Joe McNeil: I might also add this particular annual report will have to be distributed and be open and available to all members of the community.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Where does it say that?

The Chairman: It's under 10.1 and 10.2.

[Translation]

Are there any comments?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't agree. I just want another chance at this before we go to the question. This is saying in a lot better language and a lot cleaner fashion what I was trying to say the last time, and I can understand why the members voted against me. I'll hold that against you.

This says:

After the community has decided upon how it proposes to allocate funds authorized to be expended under this section, the community shall provide to any member of the community who requests it, a list indicating how the community proposes to allocate these funds.

That's just an open—

Mr. Gordon Earle: But it still doesn't allocate them. It's a proposal.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, it's how it proposes to allocate the funds, or after it allocates them. If a member of the community comes in and requests the information, why shouldn't it be made available to them? I don't agree it's protected in the wording of the annual report. Yes, it will be consistent with the rest of the school boards in Canada, but we're talking about the allocation of funds that belong to all the band members. If one of those band members wishes to know what that is.... They're not controlling it or taking over the government or the band; they want an open and transparent process.

• 1635

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Earle, please.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I tend to disagree with my colleague here, in the sense he's saying it's after the committee has decided. It says the community has decided how it proposes to allocate funds, again creating an administrative nightmare for a community. It decides how it will allocate the funds, but it hasn't given them out yet. Now, all of a sudden, everybody gets a list before the money is given out.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Everybody doesn't get a list. The people who get a list are the people who make a request.

Mr. John Finlay: The best part is because they are not satisfied and think something is—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So how are you going to deal with those guys then, John? If people—

Mr. John Finlay: Apply next year.

The Chairman: Mr. Cracower.

Mr. Allan Cracower: Again, with regard to schedule D, “Principles of the Constitutions” and the fair, open and transparent system to which Mr. Keddy referred, it says very specifically they have to adhere to the standards that exist in other parts of Canada to other education institutions, other education systems.

Specifically, in paragraph 3, it makes reference to the school boards and how they could enact laws, given the power to do so, with respect to, amongst other things, paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) refers to the “maintenance of books, records and accounts of the Community Education Board”. In other words, if it's allocating moneys, it would have to adhere to the standards that exist in other education systems within Canada.

My point is, once again, should we have a dual standard or should we have a standard that's consistent with other—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's not a dual standard at all. That's a ridiculous statement. You have members of the community who are requesting information. Why shouldn't they have it if they request it from their own elected representatives?

Mr. Allan Cracower: I'm not suggesting they wouldn't be granted the opportunity to review the books and determine the information you're suggesting they may want to seek. I'm saying they will be doing so based upon the fact that other systems in Canada also have a similar system in place.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad, followed by Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have a question for Mr. Keddy.

He requests a list. I don't know what he means by a list. Does he mean a report? Is he asking for a list of institutions where the money went or the people who are receiving it?

You have schools that are supported; you have people who are supported when they are away at other schools. I don't see where there's enough detail in your motion here to support it. What is in the actual agreement is much more specific.

The Chairman: M. Earle.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I would like an answer from Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The list indicating how the community proposes to allocate those funds would be the list of the students who have applied for the funds and what schools they're going to. This is not exactly tender and intimate knowledge here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You will be the last speaker, Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I want to ask a question that may help, and maybe Mr. Cracower can answer it.

Do you have a lawyer or are you both lawyers?

A voice: He's a lawyer.

Mr. Gordon Earle: You're a lawyer. Okay.

Does the Access to Information Act apply to this situation? If, for example, a member wanted to have access to the books, could they apply under the Access to Information Act?

Mr. Allan Cracower: Under the Access to Information Act, the privacy legislation does not apply.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So we have two standards.

Mr. Allan Cracower: No. Again, we emphasize the standard is established in paragraph 1 of the “Principles of the Constitutions”.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Let me carry on a step further.

I asked about the Access to Information Act because in your reporting requirement, the annual report and the audits will be made available to Canada. Once they're in Canada's possession, if someone applies for those records—which would legitimately be records of the Canadian government—does the Access to Information Act apply?

Mr. Allan Cracower: Ordinarily, when information is provided to Canada of a confidential nature, the individuals who provided that information would have to give their concurrence to disclosure of that information.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So he could apply depending upon whether the agreement is given.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions? Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't think the Access to Information Act applies, for the very answer he just gave that all parties have to be in agreement. So if you want to find out if they have the right to find out that information, we'll have to include it in the act.

I'm ready for the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We will now move on to amendment PC-5.

• 1640

Could you read it, Mr. Keddy, please?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Amendment PC-5 reads:

Where a member of a community referred to in subsection (2) has requested financial assistance for a post-secondary education, neither the community nor the community education board shall attempt to influence or interfere with the member's choice of educational institution that will provide that education by granting or refusing to grant such assistance, or by doing any other thing with a view to influencing or interfering with that choice.

That means you let people make up their own mind.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let us have discussion now. Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman,

[English]

for the same reason as the two previous amendments proposed by our colleague, we're going to be against it. I mean, it doesn't change anything.

To me, another point is that if someone wants to counsel, are they thus influencing someone? What's going to happen?

To me, it's totally redundant and irrelevant, and we're opposed to it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I find this one somewhat distasteful, because the implication is that aboriginal people are going to act in a way that's very negative to their own members. Now, we know that happens in all societies, but we don't have that standard in non-aboriginal society in any loans or grants program.

So I find this very distasteful.

[Translation]

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We will now go on to amendment R-3. Mr. Konrad, could you please read your amendment?

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In view of the fact that one very nearly like it was defeated without any help whatever by any member of the Liberal Party—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Derrek Konrad: —I will withdraw this motion rather than fight it again.

[Translation]

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive carried)

(Clause 10—Constitution)

The Chairman: We have three amendments. the first is from the Reform Party, proposed by Mr. Konrad. Could you read your amendment, Mr. Konrad?

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Do you want me to read this?

The Chairman: Yes, read your amendment.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It reads:

A person duly elected by each community in accordance with the laws of that community is a member of the corporation and such persons together constitute its board of directors, and the board may provide, by by-law or otherwise, for the management and conduct of the affairs of the corporation.

I would like to suggest that in the interests of democracy, we want to lessen the concentration of power and pay cheques in the hands of very few people and see that there is a board that is accountable for the delivery of educational services to the community. That way, they can be dealt with at the polls on that issue rather than through the broad range of powers exercised by the band chiefs.

I disagree totally that there would be no way that people would listen to these elected members. Any time there's an election in the band, the chief may lose his job. I certainly don't think he loses all of his standing in the community as a result of having had a change in the standing of the leadership of the band.

• 1645

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Konrad.

Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: With all due respect to my colleague, there are a couple of reasons that we totally disagree with this.

First of all, on the fact that the chief will hold the power, this was discussed in the band. There was a consensus in the band. There was a ratification by the band. There is a tradition in the band, in fact, that the leaders hold the power.

If we look at when the education board started, it started in 1985, as a non-political body, and never ended up anywhere. When they gave it back, gave it to the chiefs, and we started to discuss it with them, we ended up with a bill like the one that's in front of us today.

There is an election every second year. You just mentioned that. They're elected people. There was a ratification. There is a consensus in the band, and it's the way it works with the first nations. Why should education be different from the way it is for policing? The chiefs are on the board of the police. It's in their culture.

For all these reasons, we're going to oppose this amendment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I am focusing on what was decided in the agreement. I would remind members of the committee that in the last Parliament, a report on education was prepared by the members of this committee. I think I am probably the only person who is still a member of the committee.

I am against the fact that certain jurisdictions have been given autonomy, but under certain conditions that are not in keeping with the thrust of the agreement.

I am not opposed to the idea of chiefs being members of the council. I do not propose that the members be elected through a universal ballot and that chiefs not be eligible for those positions. I am in favour of what was put into the agreement that we have before us. It was decided that chiefs would be members of the council.

I always want to respect the wishes of the communities. In deciding that there will be a devolution of powers, there should not be any conditions attached. The powers are vested and then they decide how they want to use those powers. They decided that the chiefs would be council members. Therefore I have to oppose the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: If we're serious about the concept of a people governing themselves, then we have to allow that. We can't necessarily impose “our” standards upon a given people.

As has been mentioned, culturally and traditionally the chiefs have been the power structure and the political structure. If they're having problems internally, then it's up to them to correct that in due course, but it's not for us, especially when the communities have decided and have agreed about this, to determine that, no, we're not going to accept the chiefs as being on the board but want it to be duly elected representatives. Why are we patronizing in that way?

I would say I disagree with the amendment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You know, Gordon, you should be careful about how you use the word “patronizing”, because it sounds very patronizing when you say it. I want to make that note.

I'm serious. I don't agree with the amendment, because I like mine better. That's not patronizing; that's just a fact.

But I do understand the intent of it, and I think it's something we should look at. As for the idea that somehow we have an agreement here that's sacrosanct, that we can't amend, well, why are we wasting our time coming here? Why are we discussing this, guys? If we have a good point that's brought forth, we don't have to be so overly careful that we're going to do something wrong. I think the committee should do something.

I've read the report over, and I've read the bill, and I've read my background information, and I don't think it's perfect. I've been a school board member for a long time. I started off as a trustee where we had an appointed school board, and I can tell you, it wasn't very pretty. There were a few members of the community.... If you've ever been in a position where you've had members appointed to a board, it's wide open.

I think that's what he's trying to address. I'm not going to support it, because I think I have the same amendment. It does the same thing and allows for the chiefs to be there, but the idea of appointed school board members, appointed school boards, or someone who is going to have the inherent right to be a school board member I think is a real mistake. We have the chance to open that up here and provide for some democracy. Why wouldn't we do it?

• 1650

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'd like to respond. My motion does not restrict who may be a member. If the members of the band want the chiefs as the directors, they're certainly permitted to let their names stand and run, the same as any other person. If that's the wish of the people, then it certainly will be democratically determined at the band level.

I do not see this as patronizing or any such thing. It's democratic. It allows the chiefs to enter into the process on an equal footing along with every other person.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will hear from one more person, Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I want to ask, Mr. Chair, whether Mr. McNeil or Mr. Cracower can give us any help here, because this didn't just drop out of somebody's brain; this was decided or agreed to after 10 years of consultation. Where are we missing the boat?

I understand what Mr. Konrad's saying about having an election. I worked for an elected school board. All corporation boards of directors are elected if you don't mind sending in the proxies and if you can get to the meetings.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNeil.

[English]

Mr. Joe McNeil: The care that has to be taken here is that when we talk about the chiefs being on a board, first of all, it's not a school board. It doesn't have the power to pass laws. It doesn't have the power to impact on the community jurisdiction. It's a board that oversees the administrative services that are delivered from a provincial organization that is a vehicle of the nine communities that have jurisdiction.

The school boards that exist in each community will be separate from those chiefs and will be established by each community. They will have the law-making power over education.

You have to clearly make that division when you're considering this amendment because the chiefs are saying that they will be administrative overseers of the collective delivery of programs like curriculum development and those types of things that are done on a collective basis based on community needs and requests. So their power over the education process is very limited.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you

The last speaker will be Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I think the other thing too is that we're talking about people being elected. It was pointed out that the chiefs themselves are elected. It's not like they're just dropping out of nowhere. They are elected by their community as chiefs, so you're giving them a job, a responsibility, of collectively overseeing these local boards.

I don't see why that is undemocratic, because the chief has already been elected. All you're doing is just adding another function to that chief's role. So the democracy is still there. As one of the chiefs said himself, if he's not doing the job well, then he's out during the election.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I am sorry, but Mr. McNeil would like to add something. Mr. McNeil.

[English]

Mr. Joe McNeil: There's one other thing that was referred to in an earlier discussion. The Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services in Nova Scotia is made up of the 13 bands. The chiefs are on that board. They've been on the board for a period of time. The Province of Nova Scotia passed special provincial legislation to support that organization, and the chiefs conduct themselves in a manner that is a model in the province, as far as that organization goes.

Similarly, in the Unama'ki Tribal Police in Cape Breton, the commission is made up of the chiefs, and the province passed policing laws that oversee that whole Unama'ki Tribal Police force. Both are exercising excellently.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad will be the last speaker.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just have a quick comment here. It seems like my motion here is being used to get a discussion going that says that we somehow distrust chiefs or things like that. There's a concentration of power and millions of dollars being administered here, and I'm just calling for some democracy on the thing. Whether the chiefs are or are not members of this board has nothing to do with their actual personal qualities, okay? I want to make that perfectly clear.

• 1655

[Translation]

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We shall now move on to amendment PC-6. Could you please read your amendment, Mr. Keddy?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's very similar to what Mr. Konrad put forth. It reads:

the members of the corporation shall consist of an elected member from each community, who may be the chief of that community.

The reason for that is, I think, the same reason Mr. Konrad put forth, although the wording is radically different, and that is that we have elected boards. I'm a believer in elected boards and I will argue vehemently on this one.

I've been a trustee member at our local school and I've seen appointed boards. I know the trouble and I know all about nepotism and patronage. I've seen it up close.

We have an opportunity to have an elected school board. It took us a long time in Canada to get elected school boards. For years we didn't have them. Nova Scotia's is a fairly new concept. For a long time we had a school board that was one-third, one-third, and one-third—and actually, that was discussed yesterday by Ms. Forbes—and it's been a long and difficult struggle.

Why wouldn't we have an elected board? If the members of the communities decide their representative is going to be their chief, that's fine, they can elect the chief. This amendment just puts having elected boards in place. I think it's democratic and accountable and all of those nice words that we toss around this table, words like “transparent” and “accountable”.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I think the arguments provided by our side on the previous amendment, the other one from the Reform Party, apply to this one. There was a consensus, a ratification, by the bands; the bands agreed that their chiefs should be their representatives on the board. The role of the board was also very well explained by Mr. McNeil. It's not that powerful a board. We're going to be opposed to this because it means electing people, and even if you say you're just going to hold another election to get the board, there will always be elections. When people elect their chief, they know what type of jurisdiction the chief has: the chief has jurisdiction over the police, over education, and over this and that. And if they are not satisfied, they're going to jump—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But there are signs of—

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, I'm just saying that two years—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. Bernard Patry: —is not that long.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Patry.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not in agreement with it. The chiefs certainly have a lot of responsibility now. This amendment has provision in it for the chief to be the school board representative if the community wishes. However, it's not a given that the chief will be the elected representative. It gives the community—no one else, no outside interference, not the Parliament of Canada—if it so chooses, the ability to elect a school board.

If we don't put it in, if we exclude this, the community members don't have the ability to elect a school board. They elect their chief and that chief is their representative. And they may not elect that chief because that person is a great administrator or a great educator or understands anything about education; they may elect that chief because that man or woman has a lot of other qualities they support. Education or control of education may not be one of them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Finlay

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: If this said what you are suggesting, then I think I'd go along with it, but, you see, it doesn't. The board may provide, by by-law or otherwise, for the management and conduct of the affairs of the corporation. The chiefs are not necessarily going to set themselves up as the school board. They are the board of the corporation, and they will—

An hon. member: They're not the board.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Am I not right?

An hon. member: Yes, I fully agree.

• 1700

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Don't extend....

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

(The amendment is negatived)

The Chairman: We will now move on to amendment PC-7 proposed by Mr. Keddy. Could you please read your amendment, Mr. Keddy?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll discuss that one later with you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Amendment PC-7, please, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have one here—

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will read it: it is moved that Bill C-30, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:

(2) The chiefs of all the communities are the

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to make sure I have the right amendment. Are we at PC-7?

The Chairman: Yes, at clause 10.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It reads: “The chiefs of all the communities are the”....

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's time for discussion. Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sorry. Am I jumping the gun here?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The discussion came up yesterday, with Mr. Julien, I believe. This just enables all the chiefs of all the bands to be participants here.

An hon. member: I don't understand.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The chiefs of the communities are members of the corporation and together constitute its board of directors, so we're saying “the chiefs of all the communities”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: If we're looking at the way it's written here, “of the communities” means the communities that are participating right now in this Mi'kmaq education. There are nine communities. If we're putting all of the communities in, it's going to be confusing. Is it thirteen communities, then? Does that mean the nine in the bill and the four that might come under the bill in the future? It's completely confusing. What is written here in the bill is “the chiefs of the communities”, and that means the communities who are participating, the nine communities. It means the bands included in this bill, not the other ones. And if anyone is added in the future, he or she would be part of the chiefs.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Does our agreement, then, allow that? When there are more people added to the board if there are more communities that come in, are they automatically given representation?

Mr. Allan Cracower: That's correct.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll withdraw it.

[Translation]

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clauses 10 and 11 are carried)

(Clause 12—Addition of band to schedule)

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's an amendment, PC-8.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will proceed to amendment PC-8. Could you please read it?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just want to draw attention to this. The amendment doesn't say what I wanted it to say. I've already crossed it out on my copy. I withdraw it.

[Translation]

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clauses 12 and 13 are carried.)

The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chairman: Shall Clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

• 1705

The Chairman: Shall the Bill carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Some hon. members: No.

[English]

The Chairman: On division, Mr. Keddy?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Oh, it'll carry.

The Chairman: On division, for Mr. Konrad.

[Translation]

Shall I report the Bill to the House on Monday June 1 1998?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: On division.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy, and thank you to the witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.